Penn National arrests

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

The ultimate value of the information should not be in question. Value is always in the eye of the interpreter. But there is an official keeper of the data

I'm no lawyer, but I highly recommend everyone read the indictments, specifically of the clocker, if you haven't already. The federal involvement is made pretty clear. Here is my understanding...

1. The ability to bet on races from out of state is an exercise in interstate commerce, a power overseen by the federal government. This came through in the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978

2. The distribution of the signal across state lines is, essentially, a wire.

3. The feds allege, in the indictments, that attempting to or actually being caught injecting a horse with a substance that is prohibited, or at a time that is prohibited, is an act or an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the race.

4. As the race is distributed over "wire" across state lines, attempting to manipulate the outcome (or provide purposely incorrect information which is offered in the official record of the race and details of each horse, used by the bettors to draw their own conclusions), is deemed fraudulent - again, by the allegations put forth in the indictment.

Does it seem that hundreds of trainers or some number of clockers could be identified as in violation of the law, as it is attempting to be applied now? Yes.

Does it seem this is an attempt to set a new precedent, and thereby presumably clean-up the sport? Yes, absolutely...at least in someone's mind.

Paulick has the link to the indictments in his story:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...penn-national/

What they are claiming is pretty clear. My question is do these acts constitute felonies? Obviously they believe they can make these cases but I have doubts especially in the case of Rogers that the timing and person delivering a legal medication constitutes criminal manipulation other than in the broadest of definitions. Does the supposed personal monetary gain matter because the trainer of record (of which Rogers isnt) doesnt make a whole lot of money winning a race at Penn National.
In other words no one "manipulates" a race for the hell of it but the monetary gain here involving simply the trainers % of the purse is a pretty paltry sum for a case in Federal Court. I don't recall what class level her race was but the largest purse at Penn is generally 35k which would make the trainers % worth about 2000 which is less than the limit of small claims court. I understand that there are people who are betting on the race but as in every race in the parimutual system, the same amount was paid out to betters regardless of who wins.

I am not defending the accused here because they did in fact break the rules. My question is are these really felonies, should taxpayer money be spent trying cases in which the publics interest is only marginally affected (only the losing bettors could claim harm) and how broad are these interpretation going to be?

We have legal wagering on sporting events in 4 states I believe. Are pro sports next? Isn't a player who takes a PED doing the same thing?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What they are claiming is pretty clear. My question is do these acts constitute felonies? Obviously they believe they can make these cases but I have doubts especially in the case of Rogers that the timing and person delivering a legal medication constitutes criminal manipulation other than in the broadest of definitions. Does the supposed personal monetary gain matter because the trainer of record (of which Rogers isnt) doesnt make a whole lot of money winning a race at Penn National.
In other words no one "manipulates" a race for the hell of it but the monetary gain here involving simply the trainers % of the purse is a pretty paltry sum for a case in Federal Court. I don't recall what class level her race was but the largest purse at Penn is generally 35k which would make the trainers % worth about 2000 which is less than the limit of small claims court. I understand that there are people who are betting on the race but as in every race in the parimutual system, the same amount was paid out to betters regardless of who wins.

I am not defending the accused here because they did in fact break the rules. My question is are these really felonies, should taxpayer money be spent trying cases in which the publics interest is only marginally affected (only the losing bettors could claim harm) and how broad are these interpretation going to be?

We have legal wagering on sporting events in 4 states I believe. Are pro sports next? Isn't a player who takes a PED doing the same thing?

You are overlooking the part that the participants may well be betting too. So it isn't just the purse amount that matters. It may very well be that some of those bettors are the people charged.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You are overlooking the part that the participants may well be betting too. So it isn't just the purse amount that matters. It may very well be that some of those bettors are the people charged.

Webb and Rogers horses were scratched.

[Cannon Shell]

Let me be clear, I don't want to make it out as though I am defending any of these people because they are all guilty of serious transgressions. Personally I have no problem with intervention from authorities if the rules/law and penalties are clear and applied across the board, not just cherry picking bit players at a C level track. However I have little confidence that this will be the case as there is no reason to expect that Federal prosecutors in other jurisdictions will have any desire to get involved with horseracing regulation. My other concern is that the broad interpretation concerning wire acts makes non-intentional medication violations into criminal acts, perhaps not felonies but misdemeanors and that will more or less kill off most of racing. Trainers will simply not be able to accept the risk under the current system of testing and oversight.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me be clear, I don't want to make it out as though I am defending any of these people because they are all guilty of serious transgressions. Personally I have no problem with intervention from authorities if the rules/law and penalties are clear and applied across the board, not just cherry picking bit players at a C level track. However I have little confidence that this will be the case as there is no reason to expect that Federal prosecutors in other jurisdictions will have any desire to get involved with horseracing regulation. My other concern is that the broad interpretation concerning wire acts makes non-intentional medication violations into criminal acts, perhaps not felonies but misdemeanors and that will more or less kill off most of racing. Trainers will simply not be able to accept the risk under the current system of testing and oversight.

Maybe to combat the risk is to eliminate some of the medicating that is happening?

Do you think there is any link between the recent House panel on medication and the willingness to look into what happened at Penn?

and yes your post sure seem to suggest there is some sort of witch hunt going on.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Maybe to combat the risk is to eliminate some of the medicating that is happening?

Do you think there is any link between the recent House panel on medication and the willingness to look into what happened at Penn?

and yes your post sure seem to suggest there is some sort of witch hunt going on.

Despite the rhetoric from the uninformed, the vast majority of medication is used properly and isn't "abuse" or illicit. The problem that I have talked about for years is that the authorities have failed to give us clear and undisputed schedules for most completely legal medications. The Mid-Atlantic plan is better than what we have had but still is very limited in its scope and number of allowable medications. Just using something relatively innocuous like stomach ulcers as an example, the new plan only allows 1 type of ulcer medication to be used and that is the $30 a day medication. There are many over the counter meds available far cheaper (zantac, carafate and tagament for example) and nearly as effective that are now "illegal" for use. It is easy to say that you should just stick to the only allowable medication but only about 5% of the horses in training are worth enough to spend $1000 a month on just ulcer medication. So what does a trainer who doesnt have ability to put every horse on gastrogard do? Try to treat them using small dosages? Withdraw long enough out (if we had any idea what that really is) and switch to gastrogard as the race came closer? Ignore the issue? Treat with aloe vera or other "natural" product which most likely wont work and because there is no FDA supplementation oversight, might contain something that will test?

The risk is that a misdemeanor charge of "race fixing" will prevent you from being licensed for a long time, if ever. Being that some over the counter ulcer med could trigger that charge and the fact that none of us can absolutely control everything that our horses ingest 24 hours a day who will want to take the chance? I personally have had 2 positive tests in 14 years (2000+ straters) and neither was a med that was even given close to the withdrawl time. One was for a minute amount of tranquilizer that we had no record of giving to the horse in question for 3 weeks prior to the race and the other situation was explained in an earlier post. To think that those would be potentially be considered criminal cases is troubling.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Despite the rhetoric from the uninformed, the vast majority of medication is used properly and isn't "abuse" or illicit. The problem that I have talked about for years is that the authorities have failed to give us clear and undisputed schedules for most completely legal medications. The Mid-Atlantic plan is better than what we have had but still is very limited in its scope and number of allowable medications. Just using something relatively innocuous like stomach ulcers as an example, the new plan only allows 1 type of ulcer medication to be used and that is the $30 a day medication. There are many over the counter meds available far cheaper (zantac, carafate and tagament for example) and nearly as effective that are now "illegal" for use. It is easy to say that you should just stick to the only allowable medication but only about 5% of the horses in training are worth enough to spend $1000 a month on just ulcer medication. So what does a trainer who doesnt have ability to put every horse on gastrogard do? Try to treat them using small dosages? Withdraw long enough out (if we had any idea what that really is) and switch to gastrogard as the race came closer? Ignore the issue? Treat with aloe vera or other "natural" product which most likely wont work and because there is no FDA supplementation oversight, might contain something that will test?

The risk is that a misdemeanor charge of "race fixing" will prevent you from being licensed for a long time, if ever. Being that some over the counter ulcer med could trigger that charge and the fact that none of us can absolutely control everything that our horses ingest 24 hours a day who will want to take the chance? I personally have had 2 positive tests in 14 years (2000+ straters) and neither was a med that was even given close to the withdrawl time. One was for a minute amount of tranquilizer that we had no record of giving to the horse in question for 3 weeks prior to the race and the other situation was explained in an earlier post. To think that those would be potentially be considered criminal cases is troubling.

Any Tranquilizers left?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You are overlooking the part that the participants may well be betting too. So it isn't just the purse amount that matters. It may very well be that some of those bettors are the people charged.

true. manipulating odds....could have been something else they were doing.